IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/vtopics.6y2006i1n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Accurately Assess Economic Losses?

Author

Listed:
  • Tinari Frank D

    () (Tinari Economics Group)

  • Cahill Kevin E

    () (Tinari Economics Group)

  • Grivoyannis Elias

    () (Yeshiva University)

Abstract

Under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF), victims' families were provided monetary compensation based on economic and non-economic losses in exchange for giving up their right to sue U.S. entities, such as airlines. Was the Fund successful in calculating economic losses, and should it be repeated in the wake of another such attack? This paper assesses the extent to which forensic economists influenced the Special Masters decisions. We find that, for the most part, the Special Master's economic awards before collateral offsets were bounded by the presumed award amounts and the forensic economist's calculations, with substantial variation across claimants. This result implies that the Special Master's economic awards appear to have been significantly influenced by other factors offered during the VCF hearings, raising questions about fairness if a similar process is to be repeated in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Tinari Frank D & Cahill Kevin E & Grivoyannis Elias, 2006. "Did the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Accurately Assess Economic Losses?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-43, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:topics.6:y:2006:i:1:n:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2006.6.1/bejeap.2006.6.1.1438/bejeap.2006.6.1.1438.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:topics.6:y:2006:i:1:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.